IN THEORY: Putting a lot on their plates

A Republican state senator said Friday he plans to introduce a bill to create a faith-proclaiming “I Believe” license plate in Alabama similar to one approved recently by South Carolina lawmakers. The South Carolina Legislature passed a bill last month to create an “I Believe” license plate with the image of a cross and a stained-glass window. The American Jewish Congress and other groups are considering challenging the South Carolina law in court. Should the Alabama Legislature support the measure, or does it show a preference to one religion?

?

Our Declaration of Independence appeals to entitlement to dissolve political alliances by “Nature’s God,” to endowment of unalienable rights by the “Creator” of all men and to “the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions.” In short, our own Declaration of Independence declares, “We believe.” But it goes even further than the proposed Alabama license plates. It affirms our belief in God, and in only one God.

Especially in light of the most recent foolishness perpetrated by California’s Supreme Court, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone challenged the constitutionality of the Declaration of Independence. It seems that’s the direction in which our culture is headed.

The simple statement “I believe” isn’t specific enough to violate our Constitution. And do you know it isn’t specific enough to get you to Heaven? “The demons also believe, and shudder” (James 2:19, New American Standard Bible). Faith that reunites us with God is specific, and it rests fully in Jesus Christ, who died for our sins and rose again. Saving faith is intentional as well as intellectual. It is the personal commitment to love and follow Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, who alone reconciles us to God.

PASTOR JON BARTA

Valley Baptist Church

?

I think the measure shows a preference to one religion, namely the Christian religion, and that’s why I’m not in favor of it. Therefore, I believe the Alabama Legislature should not support it.

This is an issue that invites us to consider the notion of the separation of church and state, an ideal that I subscribe to.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution wished to avoid conflicts motivated by religious hatred and bigotry, such as the ones they had seen in Europe. So they decided to erect a wall of separation between the church and state by adding an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

This actually became the First Amendment to our Constitution which reads in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .?.?.?

The first phrase after the verb is called the “establishment clause” and at times conflicts with the second phrase, which prohibits Congress and state governments from restricting the practice of religion.

However, a number of tests based on various court decisions have been written to decide the constitutionality of laws that have a religious element. These are known as The Lemon Test, The Coercion Test and The Endorsement Test.

The Lemon Test, based on the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, is more comprehensive in scope. It basically states that for a law with a religious component to be constitutional it must (a) have a secular purpose, (b) be neutral toward religion and (c) not result in excessive entanglement of government with religion.

When I apply this test to the Alabama measure, it fails on all three fronts.

But, of course, that’s my opinion.

In any event, I believe the wall that separates church and state should remain in place.

CHAPLAIN AL GARCILAZO

Glendale Adventist Medical Center

?

As I’ve written previously in this column, I am in favor of government encouraging faith and adherence to spirituality.

After all, our country was founded on the essential principles of strong religious beliefs and the freedom to practice without fear of repression. And a nation with a sound spiritual foundation — such as the United States — holds positive moral and ethical bearings which benefit the society as a whole.

With that said, the First Amendment of our Constitution is very clear about government not favoring one belief or another; our government’s responsibility is to honor and protect all faiths in a tolerant atmosphere.

Regarding the bill pending before the Alabama Legislature, I would have no problem with a benign phrase such as “In God We Trust,” since that is generic enough to include all religious beliefs.

And for those who want to express their particular faith on their car, they can certainly do so with religious-themed plate frames or bumper stickers.

However, placing an idiom or image that’s clearly linked with one religion on a government-issued license plate is not a good idea since it violates our Constitution’s commitment to religious equality for all citizens. I think the South Carolina Legislature was wrong when it passed its bill, and I sincerely hope the Alabama Legislature does not follow suit by endorsing this measure.

RABBI SIMCHA BACKMAN

Chabad Jewish Center

?

No, the Alabama Legislature should not support the measure, because the proposed law does show a preference to one religion. I would also bet that if the American Jewish Congress and other groups challenge the South Carolina law in court, they’ll win, and in my opinion, they should win.

Somehow some very well-meaning people keep forgetting the principle of the separation of church and state. The United States is for all the people, not only the Christians who want to wear their sacred symbols on their sleeves — or in this case, on their license plates.

How interesting that such an issue should come up so close to the Fourth of July. The Founding Fathers of this wonderful nation knew that we could not have a state church, nor could there be state support for religion — any religion.

Says Steven Waldman, co-founder of Beliefnet.com, “The Founding Faith .?.?. was not Christianity, and it was not secularism. It was religious liberty — a revolutionary formula for promoting faith by leaving it alone” (as quoted in the July 1 issue of The Christian Century magazine).

So leave it alone, Alabama Legislature.

This is America, where the freedom to believe or not to believe reigns supreme.

THE REV. C. L. LINDEMAN

La Cañada Congregational Church ?

Whenever anyone has to replace their vehicle plates, they’re presented with the option of going generic and taking whatever number and letter sequence they’re assigned, or they can choose something more personal that announces their interests to the world.

In California, we have several design options besides basic white that include the arts, firefighters, mountains, Sept. 11 remembrance, sports teams, veterans, whales and many more.

All of these can be made more meaningful by choosing the lettering to create special messages.

When I first moved to Los Angeles, I came up with a sentence composed of the seven available letters and thought I had created something clever.

Turns out, everyone wrongly read into it something I didn’t intend, so I got rid of it and haven’t had another “vanity” plate since.

But I understand why people might want one, and unless the message or image is hateful or evil, why should anyone object?

Specialty plates earn extra revenue for the whole state, benefiting believers and nonbelievers alike, and any group can petition for a specialty plate so long as there is an adequate market before production.

It has nothing to do with the state endorsing religion; it has to do with the state exploiting consumer interests, and consumers have different interests.

Christians want to raise particular awareness, and so do the save-the-whales people; to each his own.

I would worry more about Christians driving less than sanctified, and having that burn into the minds of fellow motorists whose lasting image is that of “I Believe” cutting them off and zooming wildly away into the sunset.

In any event, if believers will pay extra to exhibit their faith, why should the state prohibit such religious expression?

That sounds un-American, but you can believe whatever you want. As for me, IM 4 JC.

THE REV. BRYAN GRIEM

Montrose Community Church

?

Currently, dissemination of religion is very open on all lines in this country. We have freedom to promote religion through mass media, college campus outreach, bookstores and libraries, and local church programs.

Bumper stickers currently offer a plethora of messages to join or participate in a specific faith movement. As we already experience a very active private sector, I only ask why involve the government and more taxpayer money to provide special religious message car license plates?

Given that the proposed license plate uses symbols of a cross and stained-glass window, this seems to narrow the promotion of religion to Christianity. I support the fair and equal allocation and distribution of Legislature-appropriated funds. Alabama Legislature can expand the symbols to include all religions in the U.S., and this would be a fair license plate project to produce and try to push through the Legislature.

Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard stated, “As a member of any group subject to laws, encourage the clear-cut publication of those laws so they can be known.

Support any legal, political effort to reduce, clarify and codify the laws that apply to that group.

Adhere to the principle that all men are equal under the law: a principle which in its own time and place — the tyrannical days of aristocracy — was one of the greatest social advances in human history and should not be lost sight of.”

Look for a symbol of an “S” with a double triangle the next time you are on the road — it is a member of the Church of Scientology also maneuvering through L.A. traffic!

CATHERINE EMRANI

Glendale Church of Scientology